What you are describing is not proof as I understand the term to have been used in this kind of discussion in my experience, but something more like "the application of common sense," which--as far as I know--is not the same thing. Also, the negative statements you list are not universally recognised as being of the same order as the statement "I sense the existence of an entity I characterise as God," since they are deliberately selected for ease of disproof (plates, being man-made things, demonstrably possess no consciousness, perception or volition; the floor around your chair is susceptible to examination for instability; if you had a green unicorn in your lap you would probably not be able to reach the keyboard).
There are other, less absurd negatives that you might have cited, such as "there is not an Earth-sized planet occupying the opposite position in Earth's orbit," "there is no Eldritch Temple of Starry Wisdom in Zander's home street," or "John Lennon is not dead." Clearly, if it makes any sense at all, the statement "it is impossible to prove a negative" cannot apply to this kind of proposition.
So what kind of proposition does it apply to? Universal propositions, perhaps, rather than particular ones, and those whose converse is not excluded from possibility on the ground of absurdity. "There are no left-handed Indonesian prostitutes." "There are no other life-bearing planets in the universe." "There are no problems that cannot be solved by the application of common sense."
It may be arguable that it does not matter whether or not one can prove these negatives either, but that, I think, is a subjective judgment and not in any way equivalent to "the negative is automatically true." And to reason from "I do not need to prove that my plates are not trying to kill me" to "I do not need to prove that the sense you have of an entity which you characterise as God is an illusion" is, I think, faulty reasoning based on an incorrect assumption.
no subject
What you are describing is not proof as I understand the term to have been used in this kind of discussion in my experience, but something more like "the application of common sense," which--as far as I know--is not the same thing. Also, the negative statements you list are not universally recognised as being of the same order as the statement "I sense the existence of an entity I characterise as God," since they are deliberately selected for ease of disproof (plates, being man-made things, demonstrably possess no consciousness, perception or volition; the floor around your chair is susceptible to examination for instability; if you had a green unicorn in your lap you would probably not be able to reach the keyboard).
There are other, less absurd negatives that you might have cited, such as "there is not an Earth-sized planet occupying the opposite position in Earth's orbit," "there is no Eldritch Temple of Starry Wisdom in Zander's home street," or "John Lennon is not dead." Clearly, if it makes any sense at all, the statement "it is impossible to prove a negative" cannot apply to this kind of proposition.
So what kind of proposition does it apply to? Universal propositions, perhaps, rather than particular ones, and those whose converse is not excluded from possibility on the ground of absurdity. "There are no left-handed Indonesian prostitutes." "There are no other life-bearing planets in the universe." "There are no problems that cannot be solved by the application of common sense."
It may be arguable that it does not matter whether or not one can prove these negatives either, but that, I think, is a subjective judgment and not in any way equivalent to "the negative is automatically true." And to reason from "I do not need to prove that my plates are not trying to kill me" to "I do not need to prove that the sense you have of an entity which you characterise as God is an illusion" is, I think, faulty reasoning based on an incorrect assumption.
Note: as previously stated, I have no such sense.
How's that?